The irony of the .ai domain.
I dont think anything is ironic about it because they aren't suggesting AI is bad. Just that it can be misused.
We stopped AI bot spam in our GitHub repo using Git's –author flag
51–60 of 254 posts
Re: We stopped AI bot spam in our GitHub repo using Git's –author flag
#52That's a neat way to interface with GitHub's authentication system, but I don't see how they've solved the fundamental problem because their whitelisting process is just "click ok fine 10 times". Why won't the slop peddlers just do that too?
I think the point is to add a bit more friction to the process. You want to make it so that people can do it with minimal effort and an AI bot will give up. If you're in an arms race over AI commits and PRs, this is a decent middle ground to start from.
(Why there is a race for AI commits/PRs to projects is beyond me though...)
Re: We stopped AI bot spam in our GitHub repo using Git's –author flag
#53I don't have a better solution, unfortunately, but it doesn't seem seem to like the spam problem has been solved. It has just been moved from pull requests to commits: Currently, more than 10% of all commits in the archestra repo are essentially noise (369 of 3521 commits), accounting for more than half of all commits in the last month (303 of 578 commits). But maybe (probably) the amount of such commits will go down…
As those commits were made from our system they don't create any noise for us, as PR/issues/email notification do. We only include real people who could solve the captcha and their input is mostly valuable
Re: We stopped AI bot spam in our GitHub repo using Git's –author flag
#54Is the solution to everything simply more catgirls [1]? Proof-of-work was, after all, about countering email spam. PR spam is but the latest in that long tradition.
Re: We stopped AI bot spam in our GitHub repo using Git's –author flag
#55> It's not a contract job— it's our optional way of saying thank you to the community.
The writing style in their onboarding doc has common AI tells (in the quote: em dashes, “it’s not A, it’s B” sentence).
I can understand that, perhaps they want to fight fire with fire or don’t have time as they already say. Still, it all feels like inadequate half measures to me.
Re: We stopped AI bot spam in our GitHub repo using Git's –author flag
#56Makes me wonder if an ELO-based system would work to mitigate these issues. People who merged PR successfully onto a project, that had real issues acknowledged, the quality of their responses measured by other users reactions or something, etc, multiplied possibly by the degree of importance of the project where their activity has been made. Won't be about human vs AI, but actual helpful effective being vs low effort…
For those wondering what Elo means, it is a person's last name, not an acronym (not all caps). More info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
Thank you, big fan of ELO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Light_Orchestra and I was a bit confused about the comments.
Re: We stopped AI bot spam in our GitHub repo using Git's –author flag
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
ELO is shockingly easy to manipulate. For example there was a literal jail with a decent chess player in it. He created a pool of players who got great ELOs by beating him, then used them to boost his rating higher. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Given any manipulatable scheme, AI will figure out how to manipulate it. For the OP, what happens if a single AI manages to get through to contributor? Then it starts elevating ot…
fix this problem by make the rating value tied to some paid currency - a repo owner would have to pay for the PR, and that PR contributor will now have more currency than previously. In order to have said currency to pay, the repo owner would need to have contributed to another repo whose owner have currency. The totality of someone's currency is their reputation. Of course, now the decision becomes...who is the cent…
It's the StackExchange model! This has bootstrapping issues, is hard to break into the community, and risks creating moderator cliques.
Re: We stopped AI bot spam in our GitHub repo using Git's –author flag
#58> It's not a contract job— it's our optional way of saying thank you to the community. The writing style in their onboarding doc has common AI tells (in the quote: em dashes, “it’s not A, it’s B” sentence). I can understand that, perhaps they want to fight fire with fire or don’t have time as they already say. Still, it all feels like inadequate half measures to me.
Using AI for your own project is different than being overwhelmed by AI contributions from other people/bots
Re: We stopped AI bot spam in our GitHub repo using Git's –author flag
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
ELO is shockingly easy to manipulate. For example there was a literal jail with a decent chess player in it. He created a pool of players who got great ELOs by beating him, then used them to boost his rating higher. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Given any manipulatable scheme, AI will figure out how to manipulate it. For the OP, what happens if a single AI manages to get through to contributor? Then it starts elevating ot…
fix this problem by make the rating value tied to some paid currency - a repo owner would have to pay for the PR, and that PR contributor will now have more currency than previously. In order to have said currency to pay, the repo owner would need to have contributed to another repo whose owner have currency. The totality of someone's currency is their reputation. Of course, now the decision becomes...who is the cent…
This is called proof of stake
Re: We stopped AI bot spam in our GitHub repo using Git's –author flag
#60Makes me wonder if an ELO-based system would work to mitigate these issues. People who merged PR successfully onto a project, that had real issues acknowledged, the quality of their responses measured by other users reactions or something, etc, multiplied possibly by the degree of importance of the project where their activity has been made. Won't be about human vs AI, but actual helpful effective being vs low effort…
ELO is shockingly easy to manipulate. For example there was a literal jail with a decent chess player in it. He created a pool of players who got great ELOs by beating him, then used them to boost his rating higher. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Given any manipulatable scheme, AI will figure out how to manipulate it. For the OP, what happens if a single AI manages to get through to contributor? Then it starts elevating ot…
ELO is a bad fit because it requires competition between submitters; but if the idea is interpreted as “contributor karma score” or similar (not everyone’s familiar with the mathematical nature of ELO), then the way to close the loophole is to only consider voting inputs from the human project owner. This project chose to have people lie to a webform rather than lie to a git interface about using AI, so I don’t expect it will be particularly successful at inhibiting AI use by project-involved humans, but certainly it’ll squelch a lot of noise from unattended/passersby.